HuffPost: 'Climategate' Investigation Vindicates Scientists, Finds Research Reliable

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yes!! Global Warming is back on!! Ohh...wait...

So basically it says that some of these scientists are putzes, but their scientific work is solid.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/07/climategate-investigation_0_n_637622.html

An independent report into the leak of hundreds of e-mails from one of the world's leading climate research centers on Wednesday largely vindicated the scientists involved, saying they acted honestly and that their research was reliable. But the panel of inquiry, led by former U.K. civil servant Muir Russell, did chide scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit for failing to share their data with critics.

"We find that their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt," Russell said. "But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness."

Russell's inquiry is the third major U.K. investigation into the theft and dissemination of more than 1,000 e-mails taken from a back-up server at the university.

They caused a sensation when they were published online in November. The stolen correspondence captured researchers speaking in scathing terms about their critics, discussing ways to stonewall skeptics of man-made climate change, and talking about how to freeze opponents out of peer-reviewed journals.

Beyond specific allegations of scientific misconduct, the furor over the e-mails fed the notion that, at worse, a closed community of climate scientists was systematically exaggerating the threat of climate change, or at least giving skeptics' arguments the collective cold shoulder.

The scandal destabilized the U.N. climate change conference at Copenhagen and led to the temporary resignation of Climatic Research Unit director Phil Jones, who stepped down as Russell was brought in to investigate.

The carefully worded report mostly defended the scientists from attacks, saying there was no evidence Jones had destroyed evidence that he knew critics were seeking, or that he or others perverted the peer review process.

It also largely excused the intemperate language that helped make the e-mails such an Internet sensation, saying that the more extreme exchanges – such as when one scientist cheers the death of a skeptic and another jokingly threatened to beat a prominent critic – were typical of often over-the-top electronic missives friends and colleagues trade every day.

But the report did dole out some criticism, saying that Jones clearly pushed others to delete e-mails that he thought might provide ammunition to skeptics, and that the University of East Anglia had been "unhelpful" in dealing with Freedom of Information Act requests – an issue Britain's data-protection watchdog has also flagged.

Importantly, the report also revisited the now infamous e-mail exchange between Jones and a colleague in which the climatologist refers to a "trick" used to "hide the decline" in a chart used to track global temperatures.

The chart, which shows an alarming temperature spike at the end of the last millennium, became a powerful visual tool in the campaign to control greenhouse gas emissions, gracing the front cover of the World Meteorological Organization's 1999 report on climate change. Russell said the chart was misleading because it wasn't explicit enough about the way in which the underlying data had been spliced together.

Jones' critics were only partially mollified. Canadian economics professor Ross McKitrick welcomed the conclusion that the 1999 chart was misleading. But he still said that the inquiry seemed "unduly concerned to downplay the problems they found" and offer excuses for the researchers involved.

University of East Anglia Vice-Chancellor Edward Acton claimed that the report had "completely exonerated" Jones, who is returning to the Climatic Research Unit as director of research.

But Benny Feiser, who runs the skeptic-leaning Global Warming Policy Foundation, said there was strong evidence that legitimate requests for information had been repeatedly stifled.

"I don't think the university can just claim that this is a vindication," he said. He promised his own inquiry into the matter, to publish its report in August.

There have already been two major British reports on the e-mail leak and its aftermath. A British parliamentary inquiry largely backed the scientists involved, while another independent investigation, which like Russell's report was commissioned by the University of East Anglia, gave a clean bill of health to the science itself.

A flood of other investigations have also dealt with various aspects of the issue over the past nine months. Two U.S. university reviews of Penn State University professor Michael Mann – a prominent player in the controversy – have cleared him of wrongdoing. Other organizations, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, have also conducted their own investigations.

An AP review of the e-mails, published in December, said they didn't support claims that the science of global warming was being faked.

[thebluefood]

Even if you've got a good case, you can't put your hands over your ears and shout if someone has a differing opinion that's just as valid.

Eh, regardless of whether they're right or not, I think George Carlin said it best.

"The planet's not going anywhere. We are."

[PeterMP]

Yeah, and a bunch of the other stuff that was reported "wrong" (e.g. Amazongate) with the IPCC reports have had to retracted (Himalayan glacier info in the IPCC report was wrong).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jun/24/sunday-times-amazongate-ipcc

Of course, there won't be an investigation of how those stories/things made into the press and various blogs.

[polywog999]

Wow, this is really going to upset some poster's around here.

Folks in these here parts, don't take kindly to being wrong. Better get out of town Asbury!

[AsburySkinsFan]

Eh, regardless of whether they're right or not, I think George Carlin said it best.

"The planet's not going anywhere. We are."

As pithy as George Carlin is, his joke is a bit daft, of course the planet isn't going anywhere, but wouldn't we like to continue living on it? Carlin is great for one-liners but he makes for a poor philosopher.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Wow, this is really going to upset some poster's around here.

Folks in these here parts, don't take kindly to being wrong. Better get out of town Asbury!

I honestly thought about the post and run technique with this one just for that reason, but I think I'll hang around just to watch the fur fly.

That and I love watching folks who have been proven wrong try to convince the world that they aren't really wrong.

I wonder how long it will take before there are personal attacks and questions regarding the credibility of the independent investigation team.

[twa]

Yet the ICP report was found to be riddled with errors,faulty assumptions and non-peer reviewed material.

[PeterMP]

As pithy as George Carlin is his joke is a bit daft, of course the planet isn't going anywhere, but wouldn't we like to continue living on it? Carlin is great for one-liners but he makes for a poor philosopher.

I've never understood that thinking.

Has anybody ever claimed the planet was going somewhere?

(well okay, eventually the planet will go somewhere other than its "normal" movements, but with respect to environmental issues).

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yet the ICP report was found to be riddled with errors,faulty assumptions and non-peer reviewed material.

And yet the ICP is accurate and reliable....oops.

[PeterMP]

Yet the ICP report was found to be riddled with errors,faulty assumptions and non-peer reviewed material.

You mean like amazongate?

(read the 3rd post in the thread)

And it is the IPCC.

[twa]

And yet the ICP is accurate....oops.

Accurate as a 10k nuclear weapon or a match grade .223?:pfft:

Kinda depends on how ya score it.

[Larry]

Heck, we, here, in Tailgate have known this since a day or two after the "leak". (Thanks in no small way to Peter.)

The only thing that was ever said about them that actually appeared to have any basis was that they appeared to be actively conspiring amongst themselves to hide their internal materials from FOIA requests.

Curiously, they were trying to hide their internal discussions because for some reason they had this belief that if their internal communications were ever to fall into the wrong hands, what would follow would be a barrage of attacks against them, based on intentionally "misinterpreting" what they said.

[thebluefood]

As pithy as George Carlin is his joke is a bit daft, of course the planet isn't going anywhere, but wouldn't we like to continue living on it? Carlin is great for one-liners but he makes for a poor philosopher.

Earth has been here for billions and billions of years and we've been here all of, what...6000?

The human race is just a blip on the Earth's radar and we'll all be wiped off its face someday. We are so insignificant and tiny compared to the Earth and the Universe and everything else God created. To think we can do any real damage to it or that it can't heal itself.

The human race is nothing and the Earth will be just fine with or without us.

Now, if we keep using her resources in an irresponsible way, WE'RE going to pay a heavy price for it and we'll all suffer. It's in our best interest to take care of the Earth as a matter of self preservation.

[twa]

You mean like amazongate?

(read the 3rd post in the thread)

And it is the IPCC.

ICP,IPCC ...eh close enough for govt work obviously:ols:

Congrats on accepting the level of accuracy of the newspapers for science.:evilg:

[AsburySkinsFan]

Earth has been here for billions and billions of years and we've been here all of, what...6000?

Your point being? Personally I kinda like it here and I would like to remain living here, and not returning to a volcanic barren crater of a rock.

BTW, 10,000 is about the earliest records of civilization.

The human race is just a blip on the Earth's radar and we'll all be wiped off its face someday. We are so insignificant and tiny compared to the Earth and the Universe and everything else God created. To think we can do any real damage to it or that it can't heal itself.

Here's where you go entirely off the rails because your logic fails to acknowledge that human behavior can and apparently IS affecting the Earth enough to damage it enough to make human life extremely difficult.

To quote Starship Troopers, "We're in it for the species!"

The human race is nothing and the Earth will be just fine with or without us.

But that's the whole point...WE want to remain here.

Now, if we keep using her resources in an irresponsible way, WE'RE going to pay a heavy price for it and we'll all suffer. It's in our best interest to take care of the Earth as a matter of self preservation.

I'd say "Well Duhhh" but that seems a bit rude. :pfft:

[ABQCOWBOY]

The problem with these studies, like any other thing in life, are that they are subject to greed IMO. If somebody can see a way to take advantage of a situation, they will. If somebody can figure out a way to make money on something, they will. This, to me, is what has taken place with this issue.

The Science is not all bad and some of it, IMO, is probably plausible. Unfortunately, it's become a victim of greed and that has tainted the overall subject matter. It's unfortunate but that's where the science is at IMO. It will take a long time, if ever, to turn that around. May have screwed ourselves in the process. Of course, it would also have been good for the Global Warming crowed to have taken a bit different approach in it's presentation. Jamming a thing down ones throat and explaining that you'll eat it and like it hardly ever works well but that's just my opinion.

[thebluefood]

All I'm saying is that I think it's a bit arrogant for a lot of environmentalists to throw out terms like "Save the Earth" because it doesn't need our help. I wish they'd be honest and put more emphasis on self-preservation because that's really what it's all about.

[Madison Redskin]

Earth has been here for billions and billions of years and we've been here all of, what...6000?

KILL THE HERETIC!!!!

[thebluefood]

KILL THE HERETIC!!!!

Well, I prefer the term "Old-World Creationist"; but I guess that's the same in the eyes of some.

That picture is hilarious, by the way.

[AsburySkinsFan]

All I'm saying is that I think it's a bit arrogant for a lot of environmentalists to throw out terms like "Save the Earth" because it doesn't need our help. I wish they'd be honest and put more emphasis on self-preservation because that's really what it's all about.

Of course saving the Earth is about self preservation, I don't think I know of anyone who thinks any different.

[thebluefood]

Of course saving the Earth is about self preservation, I don't think I know of anyone who thinks any different.

I've met some people that really believe the Earth would just up and vanish if it weren't for environmentalists. Like they're doing the Earth a huge favor.

But, that's probably just a small, though loud, segment of the environmentalist population. Every group has a small, loud fringe.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I've met some people that really believe the Earth would just up and vanish if it weren't for environmentalists. Like they're doing the Earth a huge favor.

But, that's probably just a small, though loud, segment of the environmentalist population. Every group has a small, loud fringe.

True there probably are some who think that, but as environmentalism becomes more and more mainstream (thank God) those fringe voices are less and less significant, what's more is that what created the surge in environmentalism is the self-preservation motive, and now that the religious communities are beginning to understand environmentalism as a call to honor creation I think we will see not so much the idea that "the Earth will vanish" but "God has called his people to be caretakers and stewards of the planet."

[skinfan133]

You mean like amazongate?

(read the 3rd post in the thread)

And it is the IPCC.

I swear, the next person who refers to 'something-GATE' . . .

[AsburySkinsFan]

I swear, the next person who refers to 'something-GATE' . . .

Tell me about it, it's a product of lazy journalists who feel the need to have a catchy name for some controversy or scandal...heck if Nixon was in office today his scandal would have to be called "Watergate-gate". Somehow "gate" became the suffix for "controversy".

[skinfan133]

True there probably are some who think that, but as environmentalism becomes more and more mainstream (thank God) those fringe voices are less and less significant, what's more is that what created the surge in environmentalism is the self-preservation motive, and now that the religious communities are beginning to understand environmentalism as a call to honor creation I think we will see not so much the idea that "the Earth will vanish" but "God has called his people to be caretakers and stewards of the planet."

That is certainly how I approach the issue. I don't advocate for cleaner and more efficient technology out of some sort of strange pantheistic love of 'Mother Earth,' but rather because I believe it is God's will that we take care of the planet.

Whether or not global warming is a result of human activity, we need to do something about it if possible. I don't think finding out if we are the cause is even productive. I'll tell you what, the folks in the Pentagon are planning for all contingencies and I don't think they care one way or another why it happened.